KATHMANDU: The parliamentary investigation committee formed to look into alleged tampering with the cooling-off period provision in the Federal Civil Service Bill has submitted its report to Speaker Dev Raj Ghimire.
The committee, led by Nepali Congress lawmaker Jeevan Pariyar, concluded that Ramhari Khatiwada, Chairperson of the State Affairs and Good Governance Committee, along with committee secretary Suraj Kumar Dura, bore responsibility for the controversial changes made to the bill. The report, submitted on Tuesday, identifies both individuals as key actors in the incident.
While the committee stopped short of accusing Khatiwada of procedural misconduct, it held him morally responsible for failing to prevent the alterations. Speaking to Khabarhub, Khatiwada acknowledged the committee’s findings and said he accepted moral and political responsibility, even though he insisted that he personally supported the inclusion of the cooling-off period provision from the beginning.
“I stand by the principle of the cooling-off period, yesterday, today, and tomorrow,” Khatiwada said. “The parliamentary committee has held me morally and politically accountable. I accept the responsibility for any shortcomings on my part.”
Khatiwada further clarified that he was the one who signed and forwarded the bill with the cooling-off provision included and questioned why other lawmakers did not raise concerns earlier. “I had clearly marked the provision in bold. What were MPs doing for 15 days without reviewing the document? I find that surprising,” he remarked.
Khatiwada also pointed out that while he accepts his part in the issue, those who deliberately altered the content should be held legally accountable. “I have always said that action must be taken against those who manipulated the bill,” he stated.
The controversy centers on changes made to the provision that sets a cooling-off period, a required break before civil servants can transition into political appointments or other sensitive roles, seen as vital to maintaining neutrality and good governance.
Comment